Talk:Greenwich Hospital, London

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hospitals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Some pictures....

Trompe l'oeil work
Wren's dome interior
samuel pepys building
Baroque ceiling

--Mcginnly | Natter 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Greenwich Hospital, London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Building vs. foundation

The Greenwich Hospital charitable foundation (still in existence) and the old Greenwich Hospital building have separate Wikidata items, Greenwich Hospital (Q15137935) and Greenwich Hospital (Q96311011). This creates something of a dilemma, since the majority of this article discusses the charitable functions of the foundation rather than the architecture of the building. The Commons category Category:Greenwich Hospital is certainly only related to Q15137935 but it seems more logical to link this article to Q96311011, if only that didn't create a disconnect in interwiki links. To attempt to resolve that problem, I made a redirect page, Greenwich Hospital (building) and linked Q15137935 to it. Is this a good solution? In spite of the bulk of the article being about the foundation, the disambiguation description reads "This article is about the historic Royal Hospital for Seamen at Greenwich" which refers to the building. The description on the disambiguation page used to also do so, rather ambiguously; I changed it from "London, UK, a home for retired Royal Navy sailors (1692–1869)" to "a charitable foundation for retired Royal Navy sailors, which provided housing at Greenwich Hospital in London, UK, from 1692 to 1869." Maybe there should be two separate articles. Levana Taylor (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I don't think that we should change the wikipedia article just because someone has created too many wikidata items. It seems to me that wikidata should follow wikipedia not the other way round. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to disagree with that. It's definitely not too many WD items to have separate ones for the charity and the building, especially since the charity is still in existence and no longer housed in the building. Wikipedias don't, and can't, have a separate article for every Wikidata item, and sometimes it makes sense to discuss several related topics in one article, there's no problem with that. But in theory, a Wikipedia in a different language could choose to have separate articles about the historic Greenwich Hospital building and the royal foundation which used to house pensioners in it. I just mentioned the fact of the two wikidata items to explain why there's a redirect page, which I created largely as a way to link the wikidata items. Creating that page led me to look at the disambiguation texts for the "Greenwich Hospital, London," article, and being as I thought they were a little unclear as to the scope and focus of the article, I was soliciting feedback as to whether those need to be rewritten. Levana Taylor (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misunderstood, but the majority of your comments seemed to about Wikidata items.... But putting Wikidata on one side, you say "the majority of this article discusses the charitable functions of the foundation". I can only see one small paragraph headed up "Greenwich Hospital: the charity". If you want to spin the charity bit off into a separate article I do not have a problem with that. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at the article, I think you are right. I have changed the redirect to the foundation instead. Levana Taylor (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]